CLOSED: Thread Dedicated to the Upcoming/Anticipated Integration of Vistana & Marriott Ownerships (Marriott Link + Vistana Discussion)

[CPNY]

This has also been discussed. If I was running the program, I would want to consolidate the networks...but I'm sure there are financial reasons to keep both for now, to the benefit of Marriott.

I may be wrong, but if they consolidate the networks, then mandatory ownerships whether purchased direct or resale would have to be part of that one network. By having both networks along side each other, they can keep resale mandatory only in the VSN. The only way into both would be with another developer purchase. So I agree, keeping them both operating along side each other is a financial benefit to Marriott.

 

[daviator]

Not sure about the Stickie on Developer prices, but..,

WKORVN OF price was $68K - $74K (I know this because we bought and rescinded after finding TUG)
WKORVN IV was ~$48K (friend bought one even after warning not to - they regret it now)

WKORV OFD price was ~$65K (I know this because this is what the price the original owner paid for our 2006 resale after finding TUG)

WPORV price was $48K - $56K (we paid $24K for EOY)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One more data point: my WKORV-OV (Annual, 2 br lockoff) was $45,000 when I purchased, pre-construction, in 2003. Of course I received a bunch of Starwood points with the purchase which had substantial value, but I think that's pretty much a given with any developer purchase.

 

[dioxide45]

According to these images, a winter 2-bed at WKV will cost 5,400 DPs. If they're only offering 4,050 for that week then there is a differential of 1,350 or 25%. Can this truly be accurate?

For the same time period, SDO will cost just 3,125.

This would be accurate with how Marriott set up their point charts and what they offer people to elect points. That 5,400 is only the uber peak weeks at WKV. Some of the other weeks are hard to read, but it looks like other Platinum Plus weeks come in under the 4,050. Just how Marriott setup their program and it has no relation to StarOptions.

 

[Ken555]

I may be wrong, but if they consolidate the networks, then mandatory ownerships whether purchased direct or resale would have to be part of that one network. By having both networks along side each other, they can keep resale mandatory only in the VSN. The only way into both would be with another developer purchase. So I agree, keeping them both operating along side each other is a financial benefit to Marriott.

You've posited this previously, and I don't agree. They could simply eliminate the SO "club" altogether and then boom - no more mandatory weeks. And...I doubt they would do this since it would piss off the very people that are easy marks buyers for new sales.

 

[CPNY]

You've posited this previously, and I don't agree. They could simply eliminate the SO "club" altogether and then boom - no more mandatory weeks. And...I doubt they would do this since it would piss off the very people that are easy marks buyers for new sales.

Then I’m still not understanding The Whole network operator and being part of the networks club. In its current state, the club is the vistana signature network which is set up as an exchange company. The same way the DC is set up. If they eliminated that club and moved developer and retro weeks into a sole Club (the destination club exchange) wouldn’t that force mandatory resale weeks in as well? Either I’m hopeful or I may be a bit getting too into the weeds (not the Smokey or edible kind).

 

[Ken555]

Then I’m still not understanding The Whole network operator and being part of the networks club. In its current state, the club is the vistana signature network which is set up as an exchange company. The same way the DC is set up. If they eliminated that club and moved developer and retro weeks into a sole Club (the destination club exchange) wouldn’t that force mandatory resale weeks in as well? Either I’m hopeful or I may be a bit getting too into the weeds (not the Smokey or edible kind).

4/20 was yesterday, so you have no excuse...

The SO "club" is one network. DP is a different network. I don't believe they are contractually obligated to keep the SO "club" at all - they may make whatever changes they want to it, including eliminating it altogether. That is separate and distinct from the MVC DP network.

 

[ocdb8r]

4/20 was yesterday, so you have no excuse...

The SO "club" is one network. DP is a different network. I don't believe they are contractually obligated to keep the SO "club" at all - they may make whatever changes they want to it, including eliminating it altogether. That is separate and distinct from the MVC DP network.

I believe this may have been the case BEFORE launch of the various FLEX trusts...but I suspect those trusts somehow codified the existing SO network (at least as regards those who own in the trusts) and thus they may not be able to get rid of the system so easily (again, at least as regards the trusts).

Given the above, if you know you're going to be stuck with some remnant of the SO network, why abolish it for those for whom which it (may be) optional for (e.g. those who own weeks for which there is not a clear deeded right to the "club")?

Finally, even if elimination of the club was "ideal" from an operational and sales perspective, I don't think you'd want to risk alienating all the owners who bought it with the expectation of participating in the SO club. It's much easier to offer an "optional" entry path into DP points.

 

[Ken555]

I believe this may have been the case BEFORE launch of the various FLEX trusts...but I suspect those trusts somehow codified the existing SO network (at least as regards those who own in the trusts) and thus they may not be able to get rid of the system so easily (again, at least as regards the trusts).

Given the above, if you know you're going to be stuck with some remnant of the SO network, why abolish it for those for whom which it (may be) optional for (e.g. those who own weeks for which there is not a clear deeded right to the "club")?

Finally, even if elimination of the club was "ideal" from an operational and sales perspective, I don't think you'd want to risk alienating all the owners who bought it with the expectation of participating in the SO club. It's much easier to offer an "optional" entry path into DP points.

I agree, and I've posted similarly... this still doesn't mean they don't have the right to remove it should they choose to do so (at least for deeded weeks, and not Flex...). There's a distinction between what is possible and what is likely.

 

[VacationForever]

I agree, and I've posted similarly... this still doesn't mean they don't have the right to remove it should they choose to do so (at least for deeded weeks, and not Flex...). There's a distinction between what is possible and what is likely.

If you look at your WKV by-laws etc, joining the SVN/VSN is "mandatory" and the description of it being an internal exchange system that you must participate in. MVC cannot do away with SVN/VSN and risk getting a class action lawsuit and clearly would lose.

 

[Lansdowne]

I think the number per week was increased to 12 in 2021 as a result of the affiliation agreement between the resort and the golf provider being renewed?

Yes, but at Heritage Club, they changed the golf courses at which you can play those rounds. You used to get 2 rounds at Harbourtown... Not any more.

 

[cubigbird]

The program we bought into is changing for the worse, and the only way it will remain similar (or improve) for individuals is if you cough up another significant investment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And this…..is the whole reason why Marriott bought Vistana, to create value and return for shareholders. This proves the old TUG adage to be true: Buy where you want to go.

 

[Ken555]

If you look at your WKV by-laws etc, joining the SVN/VSN is "mandatory" and the description of it being an internal exchange system that you must participate in. MVC cannot do away with SVN/VSN and risk getting a class action lawsuit and clearly would lose.

Yes, membership is mandatory but the operator may make whatever changes they want to the "club" including eliminating it altogether. This was discussed at length many years ago on TUG and unless it was misinterpreted, the operator has full control of the program. The consensus at the time was that it would be against their own interests to eliminate it, but now that there is a competing internal trading network the option exists. Naturally, I don't think they would make any such changes and it would likely backfire from angry owners (as you imply). I'm surprised I'm the only TUG member stating this...

 

[Ken555]

And this…..is the whole reason why Marriott bought Vistana, to create value and return for shareholders.

Obviously! Once again, they "bought" Vistana... and Vistana owners need to pay up to use the new and improved network.

 

[cubigbird]

Obviously! Once again, they "bought" Vistana... and Vistana owners need to pay up to use the new and improved network.

The one and only objective.

 

[Ken555]

The one and only objective.

I don't think there was ever any doubt of their goals.

 

[rcv82]

Yes, membership is mandatory but the operator may make whatever changes they want to the "club" including eliminating it altogether. This was discussed at length many years ago on TUG and unless it was misinterpreted, the operator has full control of the program. The consensus at the time was that it would be against their own interests to eliminate it, but now that there is a competing internal trading network the option exists. Naturally, I don't think they would make any such changes and it would likely backfire from angry owners (as you imply). I'm surprised I'm the only TUG member stating this...

I have also stated this. Long-term I wouldn’t be surprised if they get this down to one exchange system. I’m not sure how much legal latitude they have to modify the DC exchange, but I also don’t see anything requiring VSN to stay like it is. The one area that I don’t think they have as much latitude to change is the trust ownerships. I think they have to stay pretty close to “as sold” for at least “home” resort booking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cubigbird]

I don't think there was ever any doubt of their goals.

Looking forward to hearing owners in updates that spent tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds, screaming when they are told they have to spend that again. The amount of trust put in timeshare sales people is astounding.

 

[5finny]

If they want to gradually get rid of mandatory weeks perhaps a relatively easy way to do so would be to allow existing mandatory owners to join the Marriott Destination Point system at no or a reduced price with a condition that all parties would agree that the "mandatory" benefit would thereafter not pass to or be available to subsequent owners

 

[VacationForever]

If they want to gradually get rid of mandatory weeks perhaps a relatively easy way to do so would be to allow existing mandatory owners to join the Marriott Destination Point system at no or a reduced price with a condition that all parties would agree that the "mandatory" benefit would thereafter not pass to or be available to subsequent owners

Not really. If 50% of the owners don't join, then they will continue to access VSN and when they sell their ownership, that VSN right passes down to the buyers. So you still cannot get rid of VSN for many decades, if ever.

 

[DanCali]

You can't go off the highest point requirement.

A couple of hundred posts ago (maybe more at this point) I did a calculation. You have to take the average required to book weeks 1-21 and 51-52 (Platinum season). That would be the fair value. 4050 is about an 8%-9% haircut....

Ok. That PDF isn't easy to read so when we get the official docs I'll review this again. I'm sure you're correct.

Here is the WKV 2BR Plat example (post 1104) I was referring to where I computed the skim using the blurry pdfs.

CLOSED: Thread Dedicated to the Upcoming/Anticipated Integration of Vistana & Marriott Ownerships (Marriott Link + Vistana Discussion)

Yep. They told us that non-Nanea and Non-WSJ would be WORSE than this, as in 1:35 or 1:38. Guess we’ll see when this becomes official. If true, that would make the “skim” on Vistana close to 30% based on the pictures of the point costs in pictures that have been posted.

tugbbs.com

 

[TravelTime]

If they want to gradually get rid of mandatory weeks perhaps a relatively easy way to do so would be to allow existing mandatory owners to join the Marriott Destination Point system at no or a reduced price with a condition that all parties would agree that the "mandatory" benefit would thereafter not pass to or be available to subsequent owners

This is similar to what Disney did. It makes so much sense. I am hoping this is what they do.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

If they want to gradually get rid of mandatory weeks perhaps a relatively easy way to do so would be to allow existing mandatory owners to join the Marriott Destination Point system at no or a reduced price with a condition that all parties would agree that the "mandatory" benefit would thereafter not pass to or be available to subsequent owners

I would never agree to these terms because it would kill the resale value of the unit. Units that hold back and keep such benefits would become even more valuable than before.

 

[Ken555]

If they want to gradually get rid of mandatory weeks perhaps a relatively easy way to do so would be to allow existing mandatory owners to join the Marriott Destination Point system at no or a reduced price with a condition that all parties would agree that the "mandatory" benefit would thereafter not pass to or be available to subsequent owners

That would simply accelerate the predicted devaluation of certain weeks, and lower the resale value of them, assuming the point allocations as stated earlier in this thread are accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ocdb8r]

The ability to reserve home resorts is not in question. The ability, long-term, to trade via SOs, is the issue. If more and more opt not to use SOs and use DPs instead then the available units for SOs will diminish and over time encourage owners to do something else with their weeks, such as using them directly, renting, or enrolling their weeks into the DP program. And if you use DPs to trade then it is a huge devaluation over the current trading ability. This is a major change to our ownership, even if it will not impact us for some years.

Those suggesting SOs will continue to be a viable long-term solution are ignoring the implied concern of a naturally limited inventory system.

It is quite interesting that some people are advocating the belief that this is anything but a devaluation, even if it will not impact us immediately. The program we bought into is changing for the worse, and the only way it will remain similar (or improve) for individuals is if you cough up another significant investment.

First, I don't get all the doom and gloom. For every owner that opts not to use SOs, there is one less owner competing for whatever weeks are available via SOs. This concern only holds water if you believe somehow that some weeks are more valuable than others and there's a devaluation because the more valuable weeks are more likely to opt out of SOs. Otherwise, as regards the SO program, it's a one for one exchange - for every week that is not traded via SOs, there's a week that is not competing for SO reservations. In addition, unless you bought in the last 24-36 months, there's been a measurable increase in the overall inventory in the SO world via additions of the Cabo/Kauai/Westin Cancun properties.

Second, your whole premise is based on the assumption that we all had/have some "right" to what weeks stayed within the SO system and which didn't. If Interval came along and said they'd offer triple deposit credit for Westin Hawaii weeks and only single for Kierland weeks...thereby enticing Westin Hawaii owners not to elect SOs, would there be all this doom and gloom about how the program we bought into was changing? MVC is not FORCING anyone to participate in the DP program - if some choose to, there clearly is value to some there.

Finally, the statement that this is "anything but a devaluation" comes only from the perspective of someone who has been able to "maximize" value of SO trades. For every Platinum SDO owner (eligible to participate in the SO program) that was able to trade their week for a week at WKORV, there was a WKORV owner not using their week or trading for something else. That WKORV owner may see more value in trading via the DP program. Hell, if I was a WKORV owner that liked to travel in what the DP program has defined as the shoulder or off seasons, I could elect points for my week and trade back in for 8 or 9 nights at my home resort. Point is, the statement only holds water for those for whom the SO system held good value - just because the SO system was simple, straightforward and assigned the same number of points to a Platinum SDO week as deeded week 52 WKORV week, doesn't mean it was better or more valuable overall.

 

[dioxide45]

If they want to gradually get rid of mandatory weeks perhaps a relatively easy way to do so would be to allow existing mandatory owners to join the Marriott Destination Point system at no or a reduced price with a condition that all parties would agree that the "mandatory" benefit would thereafter not pass to or be available to subsequent owners

It is called mandatory for a reason. Doing as this suggests would mean it is voluntary. For mandatory Vistana properties, membership in VSN is written into the governing condominium CC&R documents. It isn't something that the owner can opt out of nor opt out of passing on. You hold a deed bound by the CC&R, you have mandatory membership in VSN. The only way to change this is to get a vote from the BOD willing to get a vote from owners. Likely requires a supermajority to pass.